I don't disagree with the article. I'm objecting to the characterization 'dalek_cannes makes about security versus freedom as a binary affair. Balancing of security versus freedom is written in to the Constitution. We're just arguing about the appropriate balance. But grandstanding like the OP is much easier when dealing with binary things than when dealing with balancing.
I don't see the OP by dalek_cannes arguing that this is a binary affair. It seems to imply quite clearly that there is some sort of balance where freedom and safety weigh on opposite sides. In fact, its main point seems to be arguing against the premise that going right to one extreme of the scale is a good idea.
Yeah I don't see that in the OP, I just see him saying that we've gone way overboard in terms of how afraid we are of things that are or at least should be laughably small risks.
